Author: Curt Doolittle

  • CENTRAL OBJECT OF THE ANARCHIC RESEARCH PROGRAM The central objective of the ana

    http://propertarianism.com/ideas/THE CENTRAL OBJECT OF THE ANARCHIC RESEARCH PROGRAM

    The central objective of the anarcho capitalist research program has been how to eliminate the monopoly bureaucracy and its institutionalize parasitism on the population, yet still produce a prosperous social order.

    In libertarian circles we often refer to this simply as “the problem of social order.”

    THE CENTRAL THEORY

    Like marxism, libertarian philosophy is pretty rigorously thought out. By the time we get to Hoppe, it’s a well articulated theory of politics. So the logical errors in libertarianism tend to be complex, not trivial.

    Most criticisms of libertarianism are naive or irrelevant because libertarian claims are technical, articulated in a formal and technical language, and they are not intuitive or normative claims at all. So without knowledge of the libertarian terminology and it’s arguments, is pretty hard to make a legitimate criticism – and that’s why so many criticisms are not legitimate.

    DEFINITIONS

    “NAP: the non-aggression principle. That one will not aggress against the life and property of others.”

    “Property: (n) Your life, your mind, your body, things you have obtained in trade, and things you have converted to first-use (homesteading).”

    “Violence: (n) Physical aggression against property.”

    “Aggression: (n) hostile or violent behavior or attitudes toward another; readiness to attack or confront.”

    So it’s okay to use violence against aggression. ie: any time you and your property are threatened. And to obtain restitution for your lost property.

    So, no, the NAP is not a prohibition on violence. It’s a prohibition on the violation of property in which you, yourself, are also your property (that which you must have monopoly of control). Or more accurately, private property functions as an extension of your body and life. (true) and as such violations against your ‘things’ are violations against your body.

    WHY PROPERTY THIS SO IMPORTANT

    The general theory upon which anarcho capitalism rests, is that a rigid definition of property, and the common law, are sufficient for the formation of a polity. And that monopoly government and its systematic predation due to lack of competition is not necessary. Because the common law is sufficient ‘government’ for an anarchic polity. (This is the legal framework of a migratory herding people, or disasporic traders.)

    This differs from a high trust agrarian society where the people must organize to prevent others from displacing them from the land. In a landed society, it is necessary for organizations to have leaders, to prevent free riding by those not willing to fight for that land.

    PROSPERITY AS ‘THE COMMON GOOD”

    But since trust is an index of productivity, because lack of trust acts as a friction on seizure of opportunity – and particularly on the concentration of capital by future-oriented people – (a form of transaction cost) then high trust is the the greatest social asset a polity can possess in the production of wealth.

    Property will evolve from trust. Trust evolves from the prevention of free riding. The prevention of free riding evolves from the need to cooperate.

    THE PROBLEM WITH NAP AND PRIVATE PROPERTY: “TRUST”

    Private property and a weak state only evolve in high trust societies. But high trust societies are not dependent upon the NAP. They are dependent upon the suppression of free riding. The absolute nuclear family for example, even prohibits free riding by your children.

    The NAP doesn’t prohibit unethical and immoral actions, so you can’t initiate violence against, say, a blackmailer, or scam artist, or other person who engages in conspiracy. Its a license for predation. Given the high cost of violence and the low cost of unethical and immoral behavior, it’s non-logical to essentially prohibit violence but not prohibit every kind of cheating possible.

    The NAP operates on the assumption that a high trust society already exists, but actually fosters the destruction of the high trust society.

    Because high trust societies do not limit ‘property’ wither private or common to the physical.

    High trust societies prevent free riding, of which private property crime is merely one component.

    That is why it’s non-rational.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-03-18 14:52:00 UTC

  • PUTIN ON EXCEPTIONALISM —“They have come to believe in their exceptionalism an

    PUTIN ON EXCEPTIONALISM

    —“They have come to believe in their exceptionalism and their sense of being the chosen ones. That they can decide the destinies of the world, that it is only them who can be right.”—

    Not really. It’s pretty hard to argue against self-determination. Certainly the Tibetans, Mongolians, Ukrainians, South Vietnamese, Poles, Romanians, Hungarians, Czechs, Georgians… (well you get the idea)… all prefer self determination.

    And the west supports self determination. Because ‘Sovereignty’ is the central value of the western heroic vision of man. Because it leads to the division of labor and prosperity for all.

    It’s pretty hard to argue in favor of military expansion of territory. But its pretty easy to argue for the containment of military expansion of territory.

    Its pretty hard to argue that a government that will exterminate millions of its own people is ‘a good way’.

    But then, I want to collapse the USA because our government has become like theirs. Not because of it’s puruit of self determination. Instead, the west has turned against self determination.

    European and American as well.

    Cheers.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-03-18 11:25:00 UTC

  • RENT SEEKING AND JAPAN (now, I’m all in favor of rent seeking in an extended fam

    RENT SEEKING AND JAPAN

    (now, I’m all in favor of rent seeking in an extended family – that’s a choice. but I”m not in favor of rents on my family by competing families.)


    Source date (UTC): 2014-03-18 08:45:00 UTC

  • THANK RUSSIANS AND CHINESE: THERE IS NO NEW WORLD ORDER WITHOUT THE MYTH OF INTE

    THANK RUSSIANS AND CHINESE: THERE IS NO NEW WORLD ORDER WITHOUT THE MYTH OF INTERNATIONAL LAW.

    Maybe we should just thank the Russians and the Chinese for their contribution to anarchy.

    I mean, first they disprove socialism.

    Now they disprove postmodernism.

    I mean, the bad guys really do all the hard work for us, don’t they?

    The collapse of the progressive fantasy continues.

    🙂


    Source date (UTC): 2014-03-18 08:31:00 UTC

  • WHY DO PROPERTY RIGHTS ‘WORK’? Property rights ‘work’ because they establish a m

    WHY DO PROPERTY RIGHTS ‘WORK’?

    Property rights ‘work’ because they establish a monopoly of control over fragments of the physical world, and without that monopoly of control it’s impossible to both plan their use and possess the incentive to act in accordance with plan.

    All creatures demonstrate some concept of possession or property. (See Butler Schaeffer).

    Without property rights, a voluntarily organized division of labor is not possible. The degree of the division of labor (atomicity) is determined by the atomicity of property rights. The atomicity of property rights must compete with the reproductive structure of the family. So that is why different family structures use different moral codes – largely dependent upon the method of assigning land in agrarian societies. Our moral code is an agrarian moral code.

    The conflict in ethics has been exacerbated by increases in population with conflicting moral codes, and the rapid decline since 1890 in the productivity of unskilled labor.

    So while populations are increasing, the number of people engaged in productive work isn’t necessarily doing so. Most people today are filling in ‘holes’ where production has lagged because of communism. But in the developed world, we have more people than we have work for. And without the credit that we can currently easily manufacture, we will contract father.

    This trend has no chance of abating. Just the opposite.

    So, under this form of production, given this distribution of abilities, given the distribution of family structures, then what is the moral and ethical basis of society?

    I have tried to answer this problem. I think I have. But there is no way to be sure other than to test it.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-03-18 08:03:00 UTC

  • VICTORY!!!! WHOOT. (personal) (philosophy) (innovation) I figured it out!!!! (It

    VICTORY!!!! WHOOT.

    (personal) (philosophy) (innovation)

    I figured it out!!!! (It pays to keep at a problem until you solve it.)

    As the author of (many) shareholder agreements, and participant in (many) lawsuits I have always been troubled by the structure of law. I’ve always intuited the problem. But it never quite got to the answer.

    I knew the golden rule and the silver rule contained a hint at that answer but I couldn’t quite figure out why. Until now.

    Last year I worked on the problem of platonism. I knew the answer was in mathematical philosophy. I just had to master it.

    This year I’m working on formal logic. What are the grammar, syntax, rules, and method for the formal logic of cooperation (ethics and politics)?

    By about 2010, living in Ottawa, I was able to understand, loosely, the human cognitive problems in converting an intuitive and normative discourse rhetoric of ethics, into a formal and calculative logic of ethics.

    I outlined the propertarian method of analysis. But there was this enormous hole in it. It was descriptive alone. How does one construct ETHICAL law as theory? Meaning, how does one construct law while prohibiting in voluntary transfer? And how does one construct a process by which the ethical rules cannot be violated by ‘linguistic means’.

    Since all law is theory, but the costs of those theories are very high, how do you construct law as theory open to revision without corruption? The scientific method emerged from science, but the method of science is applicable to all human epistemology, not just science. So the scientific method is just ‘the method of constructing theories both logically and ethically’.

    The common law and conservatism are both ‘scientific’ in the sense that their theories are open to constant revision by evidence. But as we have seen from the american constitution, that the constitution was too poorly constructed to resist attacks.

    So how do we construct a constitution (theory of law) that is subject to the same constraints as ‘the method’ that we call the scientific method?

    The truth is that the founders did include a process: the modification of the constitution by procedural means. But the differences between the interests of the states was so great that it exceeded the respect for the constitution.

    The Louisiana purchase made those differences in tolerable since it would have meant the conquest of one society by the other (the south would have conquered the north via political process) the north retaliated with war – over territory.

    Then upon immigration of large numbers of catholics and jews from lower trust societies, and the inclusion of women into the voting pool as equal to heads of absolute nuclear households and businesses, the constitution was broken – first by the introduction of the fed and credit money, then by the depression that resulted from the combination.

    So the existing law was not well enough articulated such that it was not open to ‘hermeneutic interpretation’, and outright assault.

    How does one construct ethical theories in formal logic of cooperation?

    How does one construct law from formal ethical logic of cooperation?

    It’s fascinating. 🙂


    Source date (UTC): 2014-03-18 07:17:00 UTC

  • RESEARCH ON LIFE IN 2025

    http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/03/11/digital-life-in-2025/PEW RESEARCH ON LIFE IN 2025


    Source date (UTC): 2014-03-17 20:59:00 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle shared a photo

    Curt Doolittle shared a photo.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-03-16 23:22:00 UTC

  • great story

    great story


    Source date (UTC): 2014-03-16 23:20:00 UTC

  • THREATS ARE SAFER

    http://www.internationalrealist.com/2011/11/why-we-will-soon-miss-cold-war-john.htmlWHY THREATS ARE SAFER


    Source date (UTC): 2014-03-16 22:58:00 UTC